I think the Atlas V might be a better bet but I can understand the US not wanting to be reliant on a vehicle with a Russian engine.

What I dont understand is why Orion is so heavy, no one is going to be able to sit in such a confined space all the way to Mars and back so if it is only a crew transport to a bigger vehicle make it smaller/lighter and able to be carried on a smaller booster. As a moon transport a smaller vehicle doesn't matter as the astronauts will spend most of the time in the luna lander and for ISS crew rotation again the short journey is not a problem for a smaller vehicle when cargo is carried separately on other craft. I think SpaceX's Dragon is only half the weight.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

What I dont understand is why Orion is so heavy, no one is going to be able to sit in such a confined space all the way to Mars and back so if it is only a crew transport to a bigger vehicle make it smaller/lighter and able to be carried on a smaller booster. As a moon transport a smaller vehicle doesn't matter as the astronauts will spend most of the time in the luna lander and for ISS crew rotation again the short journey is not a problem for a smaller vehicle when cargo is carried separately on other craft. I think SpaceX's Dragon is only half the weight.

I think the Atlas V might be a better bet but I can understand the US not wanting to be reliant on a vehicle with a Russian engine.

I think the answer to this was referenced in the Augustine Commission. In that US has been using non hydrocarbon fuel and Russians have. So its the switch of fuel that would cost a lot due to infrastructure and training....etc.

" Not after collecting rust and pigeon dropping for 30 years. And the technical plans and manufacturing jigs were deliberately destroyed by NASA to make the Shuttle the only choice."

This is total nonsense. NASA not only has all of the technical documents for Saturn V carefully catalogued and archived, so do several private libraries. The information was declassified long ago and is available to the public. http://librarycatalog.uah.edu/saturn.pdf

Also, if you go to Cape Canaveral you will see one of the Saturn V rockets, complete, in a hangar carefully stored and not rusting at all. I am sure it could be assembled, fueled and launched within a few months. The difficult part is to reconfigure the launch pads from Space Shuttle back to Saturn V. That would take some doing.

The real problem with Saturn V is that it is old technology. They can do much better with today's technology. But, it still represents one of the most remarkable machines every built by human beings.

Also, if you go to Cape Canaveral you will see one of the Saturn V rockets, complete, in a hangar carefully stored and not rusting at all. I am sure it could be assembled, fueled and launched within a few months.

It might look OK but before it was even fueled it would need a raft of inspections and tests to make sure it was safe. Its probable that after 40 years of corrosion and metal fatigue just erecting upright would be to much of a strain on it. If you think about how long it took NASA to fly the shuttle again after it had been grounded I think 3 months is ludicrously optimistic, the whole thing would need to be stripped down to its component parts.

The Saturn V is not kept in flight ready condition and there is not a huge store of replacement parts for everything that is faulty, some of the technology will be circa 1960s or even 50s and as such obsolete and no longer manufactured or available.

In the defence industry there are companies that make a business out of sourcing old hardware for older kit still in service (obsolescence management) and they would say that with the advances made in electronics and materials that getting anything for something as specialised as a Saturn V would be almost impossible.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Also, if you go to Cape Canaveral you will see one of the Saturn V rockets, complete, in a hangar carefully stored and not rusting at all. I am sure it could be assembled, fueled and launched within a few months.

It might look OK but before it was even fueled it would need a raft of inspections and tests to make sure it was safe. Its probable that after 40 years of corrosion and metal fatigue just erecting upright would be to much of a strain on it. If you think about how long it took NASA to fly the shuttle again after it had been grounded I think 3 months is ludicrously optimistic, the whole thing would need to be stripped down to its component parts.

Of course, I agree, and I was exagerating, but that was not exactly my point...

Just to give you a sense of how much the technology gets used, adapted and reused, just consider this, "From the Apollo-Saturn missions, the Constellation Program will use: The J-2/J-2S engine, now J-2x" as you recall, J-2 was the second stage engine from the Apollo rocket system. My only point was this, "The Saturn V/Apollo technology still exist, is available and was never destroyed by NASA." I have heard that crazy myth so many times and it is complete nonsense.